"British intervention to secure cotton." Topic

One of the common fantasies of the Confederates, both in the 1860s and from wargamers is "British Intervention to Secure the Cotton Trade."

This ignores the far greater investment the British made in Northern industry and popular sentiment against slavery. If Napoleonic France (no, the idiot relation, not the original) had show stronger backing for the Confederate States, the the British could see better reasons for backing the North – remember Britain is now in a naval race with France and is building the forts that would be know to history as "Palmerstone's Follies"

So how would the Civil War be different had Britain intervened on the side of the Union?

Obviously no British built raiders or ironclads, thought the Confederates never got those.

British blockading Southern ports freeing up resources from the Union Navy that could be used elsewhere.

What other ones spring to mind?

No Confederate raids out of Canada?

Confederate raid up the Hudson to knock out US industrial strength.

British controlled enough cotton in Egypt to meet their needs.
Indian Mutiny just over as was the Crimean War. The British international focus was elsewhere. Burma, China, South Africa.

British blockade of American trade and the disappearance of the US merchant marine

British raids/potential capture of California

British moving troops to defend Canada – US likely to invade to divert British resources

Just a few thoughts

Do people read the original post or just the headline? (Looks over the top of reading glasses at Frederick and Bill).

This hypothetical has Britain supporting the UNION so they're not going to be trying to capture California and neatly ends any threats to Canada.

Not going to by British or Union raids on each others shipping if they're Allies.

No raid along the Hudson for the same reason!

Would the Russians have thrown in with the Union to counter the Brits?

!38 Squadron, Nope, no one is reading they are all assuming the usual "what if". :(

If Britain backed the Union, which is being contemplated here, the CSA would have no Whitworth rifles, Whitworth cannon, Peter Tait uniforms, Enfield rifles, British cloth, etc.

My bad. Brits on the Union side. Would that be enough for the French to support the South?

Britain had substantial investments in the Southern states as well as the Northern ones. Active British participation in the ACW would almost certainly have doomed the Confederacy to a quick defeat. If the unlikely happened and the Confederates won, then British involvement would have flushed all those investments in Southern states, just as active intervention against the U.S. would have put investments in Northern states at risk.

It also would be more accurate to say Britain was able to secure just enough cotton from Egypt to get by. What cotton did make it out of the Southern states, whether through blockade running or through seizures and sales by U.S. sources, found ready buyers at good prices.

Finally I don't see a scenario where Napoleon III supports the Confederacy when Britain is actively supporting the U.S.

Britain and France just finished being allies in the Crimean.
Russian support for the South May be a different issues.
With Russian holdings in Alaska, they could have threatenedCalifornia and British territories in the West.

For reference -

Great Britain's huge textile industry suffered greatly due to the Union blockade of Southern cotton exports. See the "Great Cotton Famine". It was not until 1864 that cotton from Egypt, India and Brazil were able to partially resolve the problem, but their cotton was of inferior quality; by the 1870's, the American south had regained global domination of the international raw cotton market.

B

Then how about France retaining her alliance with England, and pushing into Texas from Mexico for some type of postwar gain?

Blutarski – it was studying the Lancashire Cotton Famine that prompted the question.

Hi 138SquadronRAF,
I suspected so. I think it was a highly complicated political situation for GB ….. with numerous moving parts.

B

Russian support for the South May be a different issues.

Unlikely to have the Russians support the Rebels. They supported the Union early on seeing the Union as an ally against England. That's why they ultimately sold Alaska to the US, it formed a barrier of totally useless territory keeping the Brits in Canada away from the wealth of Siberia.

John my premise was based on the topic post that Britain was on the Union side. Hence the Russians would have been on the Confederate side. Being in a position to hindered California and western Canada.

This is certainly an interesting thought experiment. For example, what if Maximilian had been accepted by all the Mexicans, leaving the French with a free hand starting in 1864?

Hmmm the French with the Mexicans trying to reclaim the lost territory of the recent Mexican-American War.
Or they could have focused on Central America which had a number of liberal versus conservative wars at that time.

On the Russians:

"In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development."

- Czar Alexander II, stated in an interview to the American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879 (Published in The Independent March 24, 1904)

Those squadrons were indeed sent:

link

Further on the Russians view of the Civil War:

The autumn of 1862 would mark the first critical phase of the Civil War. Lincoln sent an urgent letter to the Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov, informing him that France was ready to intervene militarily and was awaiting England. The salvation of the Union thus rested solely on Russia's decision to act.

The Foreign Minister Gorchakov wrote in response to Lincoln's plea:

"You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted–that any course should be pursued–which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments."

A comprehensive article on the subject at hand:

U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union
by Webster G. Tarpley
"Who was our friend when the world was our foe." -
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1871

One hundred fifty years after the attack on Fort Sumter, the international strategic dimension of the American Civil War represents a much-neglected aspect of Civil War studies. In offering a survey of some of the main issues involved, one feels required to justify the importance of the topic. It is indeed true that, as things turned out, the international strategic dimension of the 1861-65 conflict was of secondary importance. However, it was an aspect that repeatedly threatened to thrust itself into the center of the war, transforming the entire nature of the conflict and indeed threatening to overturn the entire existing world system. The big issue was always a British-French attack on the United States to preserve the Confederate States of America. This is certainly how Union and Confederate leaders viewed the matter, and how some important people in London, St. Petersburg, Paris, and Berlin did as well.

link

If Britain sides with the Confederacy they recognize a separate government and intervene between two equal belligerents. BUT, if they side with the Union that means this is a rebellion and not a war and any physical intervention would be seen as GB interfering with the US' internal affairs. So I'd expect that the best the Union would get from the GB would be strong words of support and perhaps a discount on supplies and weaponry, plus as mentioned all supplies and weaponry for the south would be cut off. Troops or ships I just can't see.

Good point!